:00:38. > :00:41.Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics. We've screwed up -
:00:41. > :00:43.so says the Liberal Democrats' President, Tim Farron, over the
:00:43. > :00:50.party's handling of allegations that its former Chief Executive,
:00:50. > :00:52.Lord Rennard, behaved inappropriately towards women. Nick
:00:53. > :00:56.Clegg insists he has nothing to hide after admitting last night
:00:56. > :01:01.that his office had been aware of concerns five years ago but hadn't
:01:01. > :01:08.been given specific allegations, which Lord Rennard denies.
:01:08. > :01:14.Who's all at sea in Eastleigh? The by-election's on Thursday. We'll be
:01:14. > :01:17.taking a look at the runners and riders. George Osborne's in the
:01:17. > :01:18.dock over losing Britain's triple-A credit rating. MPs are expected to
:01:18. > :01:21.debate the Chancellor's currency later.
:01:21. > :01:25.And, they're young, some would say they're gifted, but are they our
:01:25. > :01:30.political future? Giles has been finding out. My problem with people
:01:30. > :01:37.who start politics from the start... Yes, yes, we all heard this before,
:01:37. > :01:44.the problem is you think they're weird.
:01:44. > :01:47.All that in the next hour. With us for the first half of the programme
:01:47. > :01:50.we're joined by the future of politics, at least that's what it
:01:50. > :01:52.says here, Rhammel Afflick, from the British Youth Council. Welcome
:01:52. > :01:55.to the programme. First this morning, let's talk
:01:55. > :01:58.about special relationships because the new US Secretary of State, John
:01:58. > :02:02.Kerry, is in town. Yes, he's been let loose for the first time since
:02:02. > :02:04.taking the job. And Downing Street is his first port of call. Do you
:02:04. > :02:07.care about the special relationship? I do and I think many
:02:07. > :02:14.other young people do and if they don't realise yet how important it
:02:14. > :02:19.is and how much it affects us as a country they soon will realise. For
:02:19. > :02:23.example, if you look at the UK's relationship with a lot of EU
:02:23. > :02:26.countries, regarding economy, I mean, if you look at our
:02:26. > :02:29.relationship with the US in terms of national security it's so
:02:29. > :02:35.important and it affects everybody within this country, even whether
:02:35. > :02:40.they don't realise it. In times of globalisation, do you think your
:02:40. > :02:45.generation is also looking to other parts of the world that perhaps
:02:45. > :02:48.Britain's focus hasn't been on, although it's beginning to now and
:02:49. > :02:53.that America's importance is perhaps diminishing in your eyes?
:02:53. > :02:57.The importance of certain countries has definitely changed and is ever-
:02:57. > :03:01.changing but I think, you know, we are still looking at the US for a
:03:01. > :03:04.lot of inspiration in a lot of things we do at the moment and I
:03:04. > :03:08.think young people recognise that actually there are other countries
:03:08. > :03:12.that are developing and becoming more important to industries like
:03:12. > :03:18.technology, when you look to other countries that haven't mentioned
:03:18. > :03:21.yet. I think that will continue to happen and evolve over time but at
:03:21. > :03:27.the moment as you can tell, the main focus is on the EU and even
:03:27. > :03:32.our US relationship, as well. about contacts, do you have
:03:32. > :03:38.counterparts, equivalents in EU countries and America? The British
:03:38. > :03:42.Youth Council does have membership to the Youth Forum and we do have a
:03:42. > :03:45.programme called the UK Young Ambassadors where they look at
:03:45. > :03:52.their equivalents and Councils that represent other EU countries, as
:03:52. > :03:55.well. Thank you. Last week, Channel 4 News broadcast
:03:55. > :03:58.allegations about the senior Liberal Democrat peer Lord Rennard.
:03:58. > :04:02.They reported that women who worked for the party had complained in the
:04:02. > :04:04.past that he had behaved inappropriately towards them. Lord
:04:04. > :04:07.Rennard strongly disputes the allegations, but questions have
:04:07. > :04:10.been raised about whether Nick Clegg and other senior figures in
:04:10. > :04:15.the party did enough at the time, and whether they've been completely
:04:15. > :04:18.open about what they knew. It could hardly have come at a worse time
:04:18. > :04:23.for the party with a critical by- election in Eastleigh later this
:04:23. > :04:25.week. Chris Rennard became well known around Westminster in the
:04:25. > :04:29.1990s as the Liberal Democrats' election supremo - credited with
:04:29. > :04:32.masterminding a string of by- election victories. Between 2003
:04:32. > :04:37.and 2009, he served as the party's Chief Executive before standing
:04:37. > :04:40.down - the party said, for health reasons. On Thursday and Friday
:04:40. > :04:42.last week, Channel 4 News broadcast allegations that he had acted
:04:42. > :04:52.inappropriately towards women working for the party - allegations
:04:52. > :04:54.which he denies. One said she had been left feeling humiliated,
:04:54. > :04:57.undermined and shameful. Nick Clegg launched an investigation but
:04:57. > :05:01.issued a statement saying that he hadn't known about the allegations
:05:02. > :05:05.until Channel 4 contacted the party last week.
:05:05. > :05:11.Then, last night, he issued another statement saying he had been made
:05:11. > :05:14.aware of indirect and non-specific concerns about Lord Rennard in 2008.
:05:15. > :05:19.He says he asked his then Chief of Staff, Danny Alexander, to look
:05:19. > :05:24.into the matter - the man who now sits in the number two spot in the
:05:24. > :05:27.Treasury. We also know other Lib Dem MPs, including Jo Swinson - now
:05:27. > :05:30.a Business Minister - did know about some of the specific
:05:30. > :05:32.allegations at the time. Party President Tim Farron says they've
:05:32. > :05:36.screwed up the process of investigating the complaints. But
:05:36. > :05:39.Nick Clegg insists the inquiries he has set up will get to the truth.
:05:39. > :05:42.The fact is we had a number of women who subsequently spoken out
:05:42. > :05:46.with frustration, who now need to be listened to because they clearly
:05:46. > :05:49.weren't listened to and we need to get to the bottom of the truth.
:05:49. > :05:52.Until last week the specific allegations where we know which
:05:52. > :05:56.women were concerned and what events they were allude - alluded
:05:56. > :06:00.to were not made available to me or my office. The moment they were, we
:06:01. > :06:07.set up the investigations. We now must allow that due process to play
:06:07. > :06:11.itself out. Our political correspondent Robin
:06:11. > :06:15.Brant can tell us the latest. Where are we in terms of Nick Clegg
:06:15. > :06:19.having said he knew nothing, he has now said he did know something
:06:19. > :06:23.albeit about so-called unspecific concerns? That change in stance
:06:23. > :06:27.from the Deputy Prime Minister is probably the most significant
:06:27. > :06:31.development, certainly over the last 24 hours. As you said, he said
:06:31. > :06:35.he learned firstly about these allegations when Channel 4
:06:35. > :06:42.broadcast them late last week. We now know that he was told about
:06:42. > :06:47.these non-specific general concerns back in 2008. The problem for Mr
:06:47. > :06:51.Clegg is changing of the stance and also that almost very leagueistic
:06:51. > :06:55.ambiguous language. People will want to know more about these non-
:06:55. > :06:59.specific claims. They're described as being general. The party
:06:59. > :07:03.President said that Nick Clegg's office became aware of rumours.
:07:03. > :07:06.There will be more questions about exactly what are the detail of
:07:06. > :07:10.those allegations, how did Nick Clegg's office come to know them?
:07:10. > :07:15.Secondly, there is a real difference of opinion, certainly at
:07:16. > :07:22.the top of the party today. It's no secret there are differences
:07:22. > :07:26.between Tim Farron, the President, and Nick Clegg in terms of how
:07:26. > :07:30.they're regarded within the party. Tim Farron on The Today programme
:07:30. > :07:34.saying we screwed up, Nick Clegg refusing to accept that assessment
:07:34. > :07:38.although he did concede in another BBC interview that he thinks
:07:38. > :07:43.perhaps once these investigations are under way they may uncover
:07:43. > :07:47.flaws in the procedures. There are now two inquiries under way. One
:07:47. > :07:51.into the allegations themselves against Chris Rennard, secondly,
:07:51. > :07:55.another one into how the party has dealt with them. Nick Clegg in a
:07:55. > :07:58.difficult position, he has to let due process take place and that's
:07:58. > :08:02.going to take time. We don't know exactly who is going to be heading
:08:02. > :08:06.up both inquiries at the moment. In the meantime, he doesn't want to
:08:06. > :08:11.rush to judgment. The key problem for the Deputy Prime Minister is
:08:11. > :08:20.his curiosity or perhaps even his incuriosity. It was a label
:08:20. > :08:26.ascribed to George Entwistle, director general at the BBC for 52
:08:26. > :08:30.days and the fact he didn't ask various questions is something
:08:30. > :08:34.being labelled at Nick Clegg. If he didn't know about these allegations,
:08:34. > :08:37.didn't know details about them back in tweet, -- 2008 and people
:08:37. > :08:41.weren't coming forward and didn't feel they could approach him then
:08:41. > :08:44.why was that? Thank you very much.
:08:44. > :08:48.I'm now joined by Mark Littlewood, who was the Liberal Democrats' Head
:08:48. > :08:53.of Media when Lord Rennard was the party's Chief Executive. Had you
:08:53. > :08:57.heard about the allegations? Not a whisper or a sniff or rumour
:08:57. > :09:02.between 2004 and 2007 when I was there. None of these rumours that
:09:02. > :09:06.have been circulated you hadn't heard about? Not a sniff of it.
:09:06. > :09:09.Maybe I was an incredibly unobserveant press officer but
:09:09. > :09:14.there wasn't even a call from the the journalist during that period.
:09:14. > :09:20.By about 2008 I started hearing some of these rumours, but, frankly,
:09:20. > :09:25.very often, certainly in my position, having left the party, I
:09:25. > :09:28.dismissed them as tittle tattle. The more you hear from different
:09:28. > :09:32.sources and different events the more you think is there something
:09:32. > :09:36.in this? What do you think about the way it's been handled by Nick
:09:36. > :09:42.Clegg so far, particularly this idea he said he knew nothing about
:09:42. > :09:49.the specific allegations, but now has revealed he also heard rumours,
:09:49. > :09:51.so far as to get Danny Alexander to talk to Lord Rennard? It's
:09:51. > :09:56.incredibly confusing. They almost seem to be inventing a new language.
:09:56. > :10:01.I am not sure what an indirect non- specific complaint is. There seems
:10:01. > :10:04.to be an indirect non-specific complaint involving behaviour that
:10:04. > :10:08.was unacceptable, that's apparently what Danny Alexander said to Chris
:10:08. > :10:11.Rennard, how can something be indirect and non-specific and
:10:11. > :10:17.totally unacceptable? That seems to be very confusing indeed. What
:10:17. > :10:22.they've got to get out, apart from the allegations which Chris Rennard
:10:22. > :10:27.flatly denies entirely, is what processes did they go through? Who
:10:27. > :10:32.knew what when? And why did they close the file? My understanding is
:10:32. > :10:37.that no one came forward with a specific complaint at that time.
:10:37. > :10:41.Once the chat had happened between Danny Alexander and Lord Rennard
:10:41. > :10:51.there was nowhere to go, what do you say to that? It's clear as well
:10:51. > :10:59.
:10:59. > :11:04.that Jo Swinson, the Womens and and What did though do, the Chief Whip
:11:04. > :11:10.and Womens and Equalities Officer? Do you think it's difficult for
:11:10. > :11:14.them? I would have thought that was her job. She would have been an
:11:14. > :11:19.obvious go to person, if you were a woman that believed you were unfair
:11:19. > :11:22.ly treated. She would be high on the list of people to confide in.
:11:22. > :11:27.Do you think the -- do you agree the party screwed up? What they've
:11:27. > :11:32.got to set out pretty clearly is who knew what when, what they did
:11:32. > :11:35.with it and if there was a screw-up where was that and why? Why do you
:11:35. > :11:40.think the allegations have resurfaced now? The timing is
:11:40. > :11:44.curious, bearing in mind we are talking about these unspecific
:11:44. > :11:51.concerns dating back to 2008 and before? You would have to ask the
:11:51. > :11:54.women who have come forward about that. I have never even met...
:11:54. > :11:58.don't know either of them? It's possible that I might have bumped
:11:58. > :12:02.into them once, but I have never spoken to them, to my knowledge.
:12:02. > :12:05.Why did they come forward? The evidence seems to be that they were
:12:05. > :12:08.concerned that Chris Rennard was getting involved in the party again.
:12:08. > :12:12.That seems to be one of the triggers for it. But he's been
:12:12. > :12:15.involved in the party or has come back in after standing down for
:12:15. > :12:21.health reasons in the last year. Why only a week do you think before
:12:21. > :12:25.the Eastleigh by-election? I don't know these women, but what I saw of
:12:25. > :12:29.them on Channel 4 News, it doesn't seem to they're attempting to
:12:29. > :12:32.undermine the Liberal Democrat effort in the by-election nor would
:12:32. > :12:37.Channel 4 News be doing that, I wouldn't have thought, if you have
:12:37. > :12:44.a story like that and you are the broadcaster, I would think there
:12:44. > :12:46.are unbelievable Is to dot and legals to go through, it's not
:12:46. > :12:50.something you hear about on Monday and broadcast on Tuesday. My belief
:12:50. > :12:52.would be it's taken Channel 4 a long time to put that together
:12:52. > :12:55.before they were broadcasting and they were going to broadcast when
:12:55. > :12:59.it was ready. What impact do you think it will have on the by-
:12:59. > :13:03.election? That's definite to say. - - difficult to say. Although it's a
:13:03. > :13:07.significant political story it is a Westminster bubble story and it may
:13:07. > :13:11.be in Eastleigh people are actually more concerned about local issues
:13:11. > :13:17.than what's going on here. But of course virtually every front front
:13:17. > :13:22.page of every newspaper will be bad news for the Liberal Democrats. If
:13:22. > :13:32.the Liberal Democrats now lose the seat, then this could well be the
:13:32. > :13:36.explanation for that. Do you agree with that? What's important is they
:13:36. > :13:41.get to the bottom of it and it's investigated properly now they're
:13:41. > :13:47.aware of - and the specifics are now, - have come to light. That's
:13:47. > :13:51.what's important about this and reviewing maybe the processes that
:13:51. > :13:57.they have in place to deal with issues. What about Nick Clegg? It's
:13:57. > :14:01.difficult for him to be embroiled in this even even accidentally, if
:14:01. > :14:11.we are being kind to to him? course it's difficult. I don't
:14:11. > :14:15.
:14:15. > :14:18.think he helped himself much with his statement last night. It's very
:14:18. > :14:22.difficult to actually pick up a consistent thread of what the
:14:22. > :14:26.Liberal Democrats were saying over the weekend. That morning Vince
:14:26. > :14:29.Cable said, you know, he wanted to be absolutely clear that neither he
:14:29. > :14:32.nor Nick Clegg knew anything. Suddenly we start getting into
:14:32. > :14:38.highly complex words about general, rather than specific. Indirect
:14:39. > :14:42.rather than direct. It's all incredibly confusing. Really, rings
:14:42. > :14:45.of contorted language. He would have been better to tried to get
:14:45. > :14:48.everything out or at least say when he was going to get absolutely
:14:48. > :14:54.everything out in full detail about when he knew what ever it was that
:14:54. > :14:58.he did know. He did also come across as slightly sort of petulant
:14:58. > :15:02.actually last night. He seemed to be angry as if he was unfairly, he
:15:02. > :15:05.and his party were unfairly under fire. I don't think that did him
:15:05. > :15:08.any great favours, either. I am not saying he needs to go through
:15:08. > :15:16.another so sorry moment, but I think that he probably should have
:15:16. > :15:23.attempted to come across as being somewhat the more contrite than he
:15:23. > :15:25.did. Thank you. The re-trial has begun today of
:15:25. > :15:33.Vicky Pryce, the ex-wife of the former Cabinet Minister, Chris
:15:33. > :15:37.Huhne. The original trial collapsed last week. Our correspondent is
:15:37. > :15:42.outside the court. Remind us how we got to this point. This has been a
:15:42. > :15:48.very, very long process to get to this point of retrial. Just over a
:15:48. > :15:52.year ago both her and her now former husband, Chris Huhne, were
:15:52. > :15:57.charged with perverting the course of justice over a very, very minor
:15:57. > :16:00.matter, a speeding ticket back in 2003, the allegation had been that
:16:00. > :16:06.Chris Huhne was caught speeding on the motorway back into London from
:16:06. > :16:09.the airport ap that Vicky Pryce had taken points for him so he could
:16:09. > :16:13.avoid a driving ban as he was preparing to fight the Eastleigh
:16:13. > :16:19.seat when he originally entered parliament. A year and a day after
:16:19. > :16:21.that charge he pleaded guilty here at Southwark Crown Court. He is
:16:22. > :16:27.awaiting sentencing but the trial of Vicky Pryce continues on the
:16:27. > :16:31.same offence. She denies it saying she was forced to take the points.
:16:31. > :16:35.The original trial came to an end in dramatic circumstances last week
:16:35. > :16:45.when the jury failed to reach a verdict but as these things happen,
:16:45. > :16:49.
:16:49. > :16:59.the judge restarted this morning with a fresh jury. It's a retrial.
:16:59. > :17:02.
:17:02. > :17:07.Does that mean they will hear from He told this newly sworn-in jury
:17:07. > :17:11.that their job was to, "Pool their common sense and experience of life
:17:11. > :17:17.to come to a true verdict, based on the evidence they will here before
:17:17. > :17:23.them in court." He told them because of the collapse, it happens,
:17:23. > :17:29.just to get on with it. Decide to ignore whatever they have heard
:17:29. > :17:33.about the onlyal jury. The evidence in court will be broadly the same.
:17:33. > :17:38.This is what happens in retrails. The prosecution will outline the
:17:38. > :17:41.evidence, they will put their case. The prosecutor has told the jury
:17:41. > :17:46.that at the heart of this case is a convenient decision between Chris
:17:46. > :17:51.Huhne and his former wife, for her to take the speeding points, simply
:17:51. > :17:55.because it was not a good idea for him to lose his license at the time
:17:55. > :17:59.in 2003. It suited their purposes for Vicky Pryce to take the points.
:17:59. > :18:05.He said she was not the kind of woman who would do as her husband
:18:05. > :18:08.told her to do and her defence of marital coercion, that she was
:18:08. > :18:13.bullied into taking these points does not wash. It is up to this
:18:13. > :18:18.jury to decide, in the course of the coming week, whether it is the
:18:18. > :18:25.case or not. Later today in the House of Lords, peers will decide
:18:25. > :18:30.whether to create a press regulator by the back door. Earlier this week,
:18:30. > :18:34.their Lordships decided to vote in favour of amendments produced by
:18:34. > :18:38.Lord Puttnam, which effectively created a Leveson-style press
:18:38. > :18:42.regulator. If the changes to the bill are passed, the Government has
:18:42. > :18:52.threatened to throw the bill out, damaging its intention of trying to
:18:52. > :18:56.reform the libel laws. With us now is Lord Lester of Herne Hill and
:18:56. > :19:05.former, Charlie Falconer. You spent a lot of time working on this bill
:19:05. > :19:11.- what was your original intention with this Defamation Bill? It is to
:19:11. > :19:16.reform entirely the outmooded English law of libel, which is to
:19:16. > :19:19.restrictive of free speech that President Obama signed a law in
:19:19. > :19:23.America to prevent it being enforced in the States. No-one
:19:23. > :19:28.disputes it needs reform. All three parties have worked very well
:19:29. > :19:34.together in arriving at a bill, which is being looked at across the
:19:34. > :19:41.common law world as a model. It is an extremely important bill. Is it
:19:41. > :19:46.at risk of being dropped by a Labour amendment supported by Lord
:19:46. > :19:51.Falconer to try and push through at the same time a Leveson-style press
:19:51. > :19:56.regulator? I hope not. The thing about this country is we have a
:19:56. > :20:01.spirit of compromise. Three political parties need to come to a
:20:01. > :20:07.sensible view with the press on independent self-regulation, not
:20:07. > :20:11.state regulation of a free media. Why have you attached these
:20:11. > :20:17.amendments to the Defamation Bill? It's not me, it's the House of
:20:17. > :20:23.Lords. The amendment was crafted by four people right across the House,
:20:23. > :20:27.one being ex-Tory. The bill is excellent. What the amendment does
:20:27. > :20:30.is it says there should be an arbitration service which people
:20:30. > :20:35.can use free if they have a complaint against a newspaper, to
:20:35. > :20:38.give access to justice to everybody and it needs an independent
:20:38. > :20:42.regulator to determine whether or not it is a fair ash traig service.
:20:42. > :20:48.What is wrong with that? It should be voted upon in the Commons. If
:20:48. > :20:53.they don't like it, they should take it out. Why attach it to the
:20:53. > :20:59.Defamation Bill? It is about defamation-related claims. I do
:20:59. > :21:04.know that is right. Lord Justice Leveson made it clear
:21:04. > :21:08.at the beginning of his inquiry that nothing he was doing would
:21:08. > :21:13.affect the Defamation Bill. The bill is a bill to amend the law of
:21:13. > :21:18.defamation. It is not on privacy. Leveson was about gross abuses of
:21:18. > :21:21.privacy. It is all very well saying it was not your fault...
:21:21. > :21:26.supported it strongly. It is the right thing to do. It is for the
:21:26. > :21:31.House of Lords to take responsibility. I don't accuse you
:21:31. > :21:37.of drafting it. You have pleaded not guilty to that. He was cleared
:21:37. > :21:42.of that, was he? Leveson recommended that newspapers should
:21:42. > :21:52.be published through punitive damages. Now when Charlie was - I
:21:52. > :21:52.
:21:52. > :21:57.think he was in 2007. What month are you in? Let's not
:21:57. > :22:03.worry about that? Now his Government rejected the idea of
:22:03. > :22:07.extending damages, not once, but twice. And now all these QCs have
:22:07. > :22:12.written opinions saying so. So there is a problem.... What is
:22:13. > :22:20.wrong with a free arbitration service? Nothing is wrong...
:22:20. > :22:23.you in favour? Of course. Why don't you support it? It needs to be done
:22:24. > :22:28.by self-regulation. That is what the amendment is saying. It says it
:22:28. > :22:33.is done by the press. Let's come back to the original point. Are you
:22:33. > :22:38.prepared to pay the price for the Defamation Bill - that is the risk
:22:38. > :22:46.and it is a risk because the Government is threatening that -
:22:46. > :22:52.they will drop the bill and then you will have lost... Have they
:22:52. > :22:57.said that Yes. Of course there'll be plenty of negotiations behind
:22:57. > :23:02.closed doors. We're talking - cross-party talks are going on...
:23:02. > :23:05.Shouldn't you wait for those? because the right thing to do is if
:23:05. > :23:08.we cannot reach agreement at the cross-party talks and we are
:23:08. > :23:15.desperately trying to, then Parliament should decide.
:23:15. > :23:23.I think this is a form of bullying, I am afraid. Bullying?! Yes, they
:23:23. > :23:27.have taken the bill hostage. haven't. You have taken... Wait a
:23:27. > :23:31.second. You have taken it hostage at the moment. What is very
:23:31. > :23:38.difficult is this - when it goes to the Commons I have no doubt that it
:23:38. > :23:45.will be made in the Commons F Labour don't approve of that, there
:23:45. > :23:55.is a serious risk it will not get through the Commons. There is a
:23:55. > :24:00.serious risk it stays. If it stays then Mr Cameron... Before war is
:24:00. > :24:05.declared, or you have declared it, in a very nice Lordship sort of
:24:05. > :24:10.way! Your impression in terms of Leveson - would you like to see
:24:10. > :24:14.some sort of statutory underpinning, to use that term, or is self-
:24:15. > :24:18.regulation enough? It is important that we retain freedom of speech,
:24:18. > :24:22.as has been mentioned already. It is important that there is
:24:22. > :24:27.somewhere that people can go - whether it is self-regulated or not.
:24:27. > :24:30.If they have concerns about the press. One thing that was miss from
:24:30. > :24:36.the Leveson Inquiry that we campaigned on was actually an
:24:36. > :24:41.amendment to the editor's code. At the moment it does not include age
:24:41. > :24:44.as a form of discrimination. As you might know, young people are often
:24:44. > :24:49.miss represented in the media. I mean, throughout the week f you
:24:49. > :24:52.look at some of the stories that cover young people, actually how
:24:52. > :24:58.many young people are actually involved in the stories themselves?
:24:58. > :25:02.How many young people will be sitting on the sofas, like myself,
:25:02. > :25:07.giving their opinions on those issues. That is something I was
:25:07. > :25:11.disappointed not to see. What you are proposing seems to go further
:25:11. > :25:14.than what was proposed by leve because you are talking about a --
:25:14. > :25:21.Leveson, because you are talking about a regulatory system which
:25:21. > :25:27.will mean publishers have to check with the system before they publish
:25:27. > :25:31.a story.... Leveson suggested in considering what damages to award,
:25:31. > :25:36.it would be relevant to have regard whether or not, before publishing
:25:36. > :25:44.something, without going to the subject of the story, the press had
:25:44. > :25:48.sought advice - that is what it proposed. Free clearance... It is
:25:48. > :25:53.nothing to do with that. If you are given damages, allowed in the law,
:25:53. > :26:02.if you have taken advice and they say don't do it without asking the
:26:02. > :26:08.subject first, surely that is a factor. Max Mosely sought such a
:26:08. > :26:13.thing. The English courts said no, that violates free speech. I know
:26:13. > :26:18.of no democracy in the world... Hang on - I know of no system in
:26:18. > :26:23.the world - it is coercive state regulation. I only know of five out
:26:23. > :26:29.of 47 in Europe with such a thing. They are all former mens of the
:26:29. > :26:32.Soviet Union. I am astonished... am astonished by how you have miss
:26:32. > :26:38.represented that! I am sure you will continue this, fascinating
:26:38. > :26:42.although it is. It is an odd thing about politics that youthful,
:26:42. > :26:47.charismatic leaders seem the Holy Grail, whereas older statesmen have
:26:47. > :26:52.to step down for being too old. Not like our two previous guests. The
:26:52. > :26:57.eLord Chancelloror rate seem to distrust youngsters who have done
:26:57. > :27:07.nothing but politics from birth. What do the young have to offer
:27:07. > :27:20.
:27:20. > :27:25.political debate? Giles has been When it comes to age, politics -
:27:25. > :27:30.the essence of youth... I think what he really means is that for
:27:30. > :27:34.centuries, youth has not been allowed to have influence in the
:27:35. > :27:38.world of politics. Yeah - what she said! You need experience to be
:27:38. > :27:42.involved in politics. You need to have something you can bring. Some
:27:42. > :27:47.stand point you represent. Young people is a stand-point. It is
:27:47. > :27:51.being an experience in itself. Trying to find jobs, understanding
:27:51. > :27:53.for graduates it is a difficult time at the moment. Young people
:27:54. > :27:59.are being vilified in the press. That is an experience one can bring
:27:59. > :28:05.to the political debate. It is just as valuable as any other background.
:28:05. > :28:11.There are clearly savvy 20- somethings, but an MP at 23 - is
:28:11. > :28:15.there too young for Westminster? was the most inexperienced,
:28:15. > :28:22.incapable Member of Parliament in the House of Commons. I learnt very
:28:22. > :28:28.quickly. 100,000 voters in a town, Margaret Thatcher, Keith Joseph,
:28:28. > :28:35.Ian mag Greg gor and myself closing the steel works and putting 10,000
:28:35. > :28:42.people out of work - my God I aged from 27 to 47 in a few months!
:28:42. > :28:47.It is already for half of you, half of you won't be here in 30-40
:28:47. > :28:53.years' time! My problem with people who start politics from the start...
:28:53. > :28:56.Yes, yes, we have heard that before. You think they are younger pith the
:28:56. > :29:03.younger, Prime Minister in his 20s. William Hague and that speech. All
:29:03. > :29:10.I can say, is I think it is very judge mental! There is a difference
:29:10. > :29:14.between being a -- between playing politics and if you are trying to
:29:14. > :29:21.act like Prime Minister, that is- and-a-half. You have to be involved
:29:21. > :29:26.in politics if you are young. old grey beards are back in fashion.
:29:26. > :29:32.The voters want to look at them rather like I look at my solicitor
:29:32. > :29:36.and my bank manager. I want him to be dull, boring and grey and full
:29:36. > :29:40.of wisdom. The truth is, us youngsters do have much to learn
:29:40. > :29:47.about life, but don't underestimate those, who from the start, have
:29:47. > :29:52.something to say and say it well. have never felt so old!
:29:52. > :30:00.You still look young though! Regular viewers will be delighted
:30:00. > :30:04.to hear we have given Giles Dilnot the boot and replaced him with
:30:04. > :30:08.eight-year-old Olivia. Let's pick up on that last point in the film -
:30:08. > :30:12.people in politics want a representative who is older and
:30:12. > :30:21.wiser. I think it's something that we, a lot of people want, but
:30:21. > :30:24.actually if you look at it in history, there have been amazing
:30:24. > :30:28.and inspirational people who have been young. I don't see any reason
:30:28. > :30:33.why a young politician shouldn't become, you shouldn't become an MP
:30:33. > :30:38.or become a local councillor, or even the Mayor of London. I would
:30:38. > :30:42.encourage anyone who wanted to do that to do so. What is your
:30:42. > :30:47.ambition in politics? personally, I am not looking to
:30:47. > :30:51.become an MP just yet, but in the future, you never know. It may be
:30:52. > :30:56.something that is I want to do personally. I want to encourage
:30:56. > :31:01.anybody to think their age should not be a barrier. Which party would
:31:01. > :31:05.you represent if you become an MP? Probably I would create my own
:31:05. > :31:10.party and... Very diplomatic! diplomatic way of putting it. I
:31:10. > :31:14.think there's a lot of change that needs to happen, so the parties are
:31:14. > :31:21.more reflective of The Views of young people. Do you have any
:31:21. > :31:31.influence in youth Parliament? Does it really matter? Does it have any
:31:31. > :31:34.
:31:34. > :31:38.What was that related to in transport? Related to all aspects
:31:38. > :31:41.of transport, particularly the price of transport and how much it
:31:41. > :31:47.costs for young people. In London, for example, you get free transport
:31:47. > :31:49.but there are parts of the UK where you have to pay a full adult fare.
:31:49. > :31:55.They issued, just like any other Select Committee, you know,
:31:55. > :31:57.recommendations that they felt the Government should take on. They got
:31:57. > :32:01.a full Government response just like any other Select Committee
:32:01. > :32:05.report. I would say they were very influential. It's more than just
:32:05. > :32:10.playing at politics, what cynical older people, like me, would say
:32:10. > :32:16.everybody who is interested in politics in their teens and early
:32:16. > :32:19.20s, and then lose interest. think, you know, just like any
:32:19. > :32:22.other subject you can lose interest and you can gain interest but what
:32:23. > :32:25.everybody within the Youth Parliament and British Youth
:32:25. > :32:31.Council believes is it affects everybody and no matter how much
:32:31. > :32:36.you get involved it will affect your life. What about voting by
:32:36. > :32:40.young people? Most people will know the voting turnout for young people
:32:40. > :32:44.tends to be less. There's proof to show if you engage young people you
:32:44. > :32:48.will get them to participate. A great example is the UK Youth
:32:48. > :32:53.Parliament managed to get over a quarter of a million young people
:32:53. > :32:56.to respond to a survey last year in response to saying what their views
:32:56. > :33:01.were. If you engage young people you can get them involved. There
:33:01. > :33:06.will be politicians who will say young people aren't voting enough
:33:06. > :33:10.in their droves, they can't be that interested in what we are talking
:33:10. > :33:13.about. Do you think young people are more interested in individual
:33:13. > :33:16.campaigns than in party politics? Actually that's exactly something I
:33:16. > :33:21.was going to mention next. Young people are more interested in
:33:21. > :33:26.issues rather than party politics. That's what the UK Youth Particle
:33:26. > :33:30.splt based -- Parliament is based on. It's about being passionate for
:33:30. > :33:35.an issue that you care about which is the roots of politics in general.
:33:35. > :33:39.I am sure there are a lot of politicians who had one issue that
:33:39. > :33:43.triggered them to want to be an MP or councillor. Thank you very much
:33:43. > :33:47.for being our guest and good luck. Thank you very much.
:33:47. > :33:51.MPs are back at Westminster today after their short recess. I hope
:33:52. > :33:55.they're well rested because there's plenty on their plate this week.
:33:55. > :33:57.This afternoon, Labour are pushing for a debate on why we've lost our
:33:58. > :34:02.triple-A rating and what it all means. And the horsemeat scandal
:34:02. > :34:04.rumbles on. Ikea meatballs are the latest food implicated. European
:34:04. > :34:07.Union politicians and officials are in Brussels to agree ways of
:34:07. > :34:10.keeping horsemeat out of beef products.
:34:10. > :34:13.Tomorrow, the new Archbishop of Canterbury - Justin Welby - takes
:34:13. > :34:15.his seat in the House of Lords. And, on Wednesday, it's the weekly
:34:15. > :34:20.Cameron-Miliband set-to in the Commons - Prime Minister Question
:34:20. > :34:23.Time. Voters in Eastleigh go to the polls on Thursday to decide who
:34:23. > :34:30.will replace Chris Huhne, who resigned after admitting he lied
:34:30. > :34:32.about his speeding points. Well, with me now to discuss all that are
:34:33. > :34:36.Isabel Hardman from the Spectator and the Mirror's associate editor,
:34:36. > :34:41.Kevin Maguire. We have just heard the Speaker has granted Ed Balls an
:34:41. > :34:45.urgent question relating to the Government's economic policy at
:34:45. > :34:51.3.30pm. Let's talk about the credit rating, does it matter it's been
:34:51. > :34:56.downgraded? It matters politically because Osbourne set such stall by
:34:56. > :35:02.it, what's interesting is whether he is confident we can retain the
:35:02. > :35:05.rating, I asked a spokesman and he wouldn't confirm. It is important.
:35:05. > :35:11.Also, Tory MPs will start to put pressure on Osbourne to do things
:35:11. > :35:16.like unfunded tax cuts to bring growth in. What can Labour say? Ed
:35:16. > :35:21.Balls has said that actually you can't hold that much stock by the
:35:21. > :35:25.agencies, they gave top billing to subprime mortgages at the time. So
:35:25. > :35:31.Labour can't come down too heavily on this, surely? No, it's a great
:35:31. > :35:36.irony of the triple-A rating disappearing so Labour say the
:35:36. > :35:39.agencies are worth - useless and say now Osbourne's totally
:35:40. > :35:43.humiliated while Osbourne who made a song and dance about the rating
:35:43. > :35:46.is trying to brush it off. The truth is he will know, George
:35:46. > :35:56.Osborne, he has failed on his own terms. His party will know he has
:35:56. > :36:00.
:36:00. > :36:05.failed on his own terms and I suspect Ed Balls will dust down his
:36:05. > :36:09.his alternative. In terms of the Budget, the timing I suppose
:36:09. > :36:12.implicated that actually the credit rating agencies didn't think George
:36:12. > :36:18.Osborne could do anything that would breed confidence so they cut
:36:19. > :36:23.it now? Yeah, and one of the tests that rebellious Tory MPs have laid
:36:23. > :36:26.down for Osbourne is a successful Budget. Another one was keeping the
:36:26. > :36:33.rating, that's obviously gone. Another one is a successful Budget
:36:33. > :36:37.and his focus should be as not having another omnishambles, and
:36:37. > :36:42.having a Budget that doesn't fall apart weeks afterwards. On the base
:36:42. > :36:45.to say doesn't fall apart -- basis it doesn't fall apart, he can't do
:36:45. > :36:50.very much, one of the problems now are fears about the currency. The
:36:50. > :36:55.pound is falling, looking very weak. There was talk at the weekend maybe
:36:55. > :36:58.exaggerated, of a sterling crisis. Surely that's focusing his mind?
:36:59. > :37:04.The economy's had no growth in a year, living standards are falling
:37:04. > :37:08.pretty sharply. On his watch the economy has gone into reverse.
:37:08. > :37:11.Whatever his excuses or reasons, it's a poor picture. He has to do
:37:11. > :37:15.something. He might as well go for growth otherwise he will be
:37:15. > :37:20.remembered as a total failure. He lost the rating, the last Budget
:37:20. > :37:25.was, well, it crumbled like a pasty and pretty quickly. If he wants to
:37:25. > :37:29.get growth in that economy, he's got to restore it and if not - for
:37:29. > :37:32.no other reason he has to do it to give the Conservatives a chance at
:37:32. > :37:38.the next general election. Self- interest requires George Osborne to
:37:38. > :37:40.do something. Liberal Democrat woes at the moment with these
:37:40. > :37:45.allegations surrounding Lord Rennard. How do you think Nick
:37:45. > :37:50.Clegg and his office have handled it? Not very well. I was speaking
:37:50. > :37:54.to someone who works in crisis PR yesterday and they were saying they
:37:54. > :38:02.always get clients saying we can't mention this and that, their
:38:02. > :38:05.response is to you have to bring the detail out straight away. Using
:38:05. > :38:09.strange language about indirect non-specific allegations, it's not
:38:09. > :38:17.helpful to closing down the story. What do you think Nick Clegg needs
:38:17. > :38:20.to do now? Vanish! This all goes away. It feels as if it would be
:38:20. > :38:25.easier if those in the party who didn't know anything about these
:38:25. > :38:29.allegations came forward, because we have Nick Clegg himself, we have
:38:29. > :38:33.Alexander, Jo Swinson, you have Tim Farron saying he knew, it's become
:38:33. > :38:37.a terrible, terrible mess. They set up two inquiries. They will take
:38:37. > :38:41.their course. But at the same time, there's going to be a drip-drip of
:38:41. > :38:45.allegations, more women may come forward making allegations. I
:38:45. > :38:48.accept Lord Rennard disputes the allegations made but people are
:38:48. > :38:53.coming forward nonetheless. Tory and Labour MPs are going to the
:38:53. > :38:57.police. It's a real mess. Wye have -- I would have put a lot of money
:38:57. > :39:00.last week on the Liberal Democrats holding Eastleigh and the by-
:39:00. > :39:10.election, now I am not so sure. that betting note, we will leave
:39:10. > :39:13.
:39:13. > :39:16.both of you, thank you very much. Joining me for the programme is
:39:16. > :39:19.the Conservative MP, Priti Patel, the Labour MP, Lisa Nandy, Liberal
:39:19. > :39:26.Democrat MP, Annette Brooke and UKIP MEP Gerard Batten. Welcome to
:39:26. > :39:29.you all. Let's talk about the credit rating.
:39:29. > :39:33.What you failed to highlight is that those same agencies have
:39:33. > :39:38.pointed to our creditworthiness, which is in good order right now,
:39:38. > :39:41.which would prevent interest rates from going up. So, the triple-A
:39:41. > :39:43.rating has gone, we have to accept that and move on. The same has
:39:43. > :39:49.happened in other international markets, including the US, as well.
:39:49. > :39:54.But we are still sound in terms of our creditworthiness. It's the
:39:54. > :39:58.political point that George Osborne held so much stock by it and he
:39:58. > :40:02.repeatedly insisted it was so important to retain it. Was that a
:40:02. > :40:06.mistake? I agree that there's been a great deal of political emphasis
:40:06. > :40:09.placed on that, no one can deny that. The point is it's gone and we
:40:09. > :40:13.have to move on and look at what we can do in terms of economic growth
:40:13. > :40:16.and also still in terms of fiscal consolidation. Part of the reason
:40:16. > :40:21.why our interest rates are low is because there's been a proper
:40:21. > :40:26.programme and focus on fiscal consolicitor tkoeugs --
:40:26. > :40:30.consolidation and deficit reduction. Which Labour wouldn't have
:40:30. > :40:33.undertaken? A Chancellor who can say there are ten benchmarks by
:40:33. > :40:37.which we should judge the economy and our economic success, the first
:40:37. > :40:41.of which was the triple-A credit rating, to lose it and say we are
:40:41. > :40:46.not going to change course seems fairly astonishing. So, actually
:40:46. > :40:49.it's not a question of business as usual, it's this should be a real
:40:49. > :40:52.wake-up call to the plan isn't working on his own terms and he
:40:52. > :40:56.needs to change course. Is Labour really saying the market and the
:40:56. > :41:00.credit rating agencies would respond more positively to a big
:41:00. > :41:05.spending splurge or stimulus which is what Labour has outlined in its
:41:05. > :41:11.plan. The economy would respond more positively to a spending
:41:11. > :41:14.stimulus. So, Ed Balls announced recently we would use proceeds from
:41:14. > :41:17.the 4G auction to invest in affordable homes, it's that sort of
:41:17. > :41:21.thing that's going to get people's confidence back and get the economy
:41:21. > :41:25.moving because the key test really is can you get people spending and
:41:25. > :41:29.growth back into the economy? are saying that's more important
:41:29. > :41:33.than any vote by the credit rating agencies? In other words, it's
:41:33. > :41:36.really not important it's been downgraded? We always said that we
:41:36. > :41:39.don't place the same emphasis on the rating agencies as George
:41:39. > :41:42.Osborne had but it seems quite unbelievable that a Chancellor can
:41:43. > :41:47.fail his own key test and still be in the job refusing to change
:41:48. > :41:52.course. Should he still be in the job? He should be. It would be and
:41:52. > :41:57.sourd to -- absurd to think we should change Chancellor. Even the
:41:58. > :42:00.markets say this, we have inherited a catastrophe in terms of the state
:42:00. > :42:07.of the economy and the deficit, as well. You could argue the plan so
:42:08. > :42:10.far to repair that catastrophe, as you put it, isn't working?
:42:10. > :42:13.disagree, we have low and stable interest rates and those are
:42:13. > :42:16.signals... As a result of quantitative easing. Those are
:42:16. > :42:19.signals we need to make sure we have confidence in the system and
:42:19. > :42:24.confidence of business, as well. Let's talk about living standards,
:42:24. > :42:30.but first of all, we know - no growth, debt up and actually
:42:30. > :42:35.borrowing, we will see if it's up and now downgraded, are you still
:42:35. > :42:39.happy to be wedded to the Government? George Osborne made the
:42:39. > :42:42.ratings so high stakes in the debate. As Vince Cable said, it's a
:42:42. > :42:45.symbolic change but what's important is to get the right focus
:42:45. > :42:52.following this and in the Budget. There are differences between the
:42:52. > :42:55.Conservatives and the Lib Dems, we do believe that we have to have
:42:55. > :42:57.deficit reduction, how we would achieve that would have a different
:42:58. > :43:02.emphasis. There is a case for mansion tax, for example, to bring
:43:03. > :43:06.in extra money. We are making our arguments within the coalition. I
:43:06. > :43:10.want to see that house-building start. We are all agreed that this
:43:10. > :43:18.would really get things moving. So we are asking within the coalition
:43:18. > :43:22.for the cap to be lifted on local authority borrowing. I think that's
:43:22. > :43:25.really important. Our job is to be putting our arguments strongly
:43:25. > :43:30.forward. You are in the Government, if you don't get those what should
:43:30. > :43:33.the Lib Dems do? We are going to do the best we can, pushing our
:43:33. > :43:42.arguments, I don't want to see the poorest in society bearing the
:43:42. > :43:48.bankrupt of the cuts -- brunt of the cuts. We have to get a really
:43:48. > :43:52.good agreed package. It's very important the components, but
:43:52. > :43:58.absolutely we agree not to go down the path of Labour, spin, spin,
:43:58. > :44:02.speb -- spend, spend, spin. You do agree about a mansion tax? Labour's
:44:02. > :44:05.come round to our way of thinking. That doesn't make sense. You have
:44:05. > :44:10.said don't spend but you want local authorities to borrow, why do you
:44:10. > :44:16.want them to borrow if not to spend to invest? I am saying we make
:44:16. > :44:20.careful decisions in this, if we are raising some taxes, then those
:44:20. > :44:25.taxes must be on those with higher income and wealth and that would
:44:25. > :44:30.give us more man owe sraerability for spending. I don't want to see
:44:30. > :44:35.is the rash spending, including that in the run-up to the general
:44:35. > :44:38.election where projects which were going to favour Labour seats were -
:44:38. > :44:43.projects were being signed off left, right and centre. Would you
:44:43. > :44:46.thraoeubg see tax cuts -- like to see tax cuts? I am a realist about
:44:46. > :44:50.the current situation. I believe in a low tax economy, because that
:44:51. > :44:54.would... Wouldn't that boost growth? Your colleague is putting
:44:54. > :44:58.it forward and seems to have support? The Chancellor has done a
:44:58. > :45:04.lot in terms of reducing taxes on business, down to to corporation
:45:04. > :45:07.tax, small profit rates tax and that has brought in confidence for
:45:07. > :45:11.businesses to invest. Investment is key to create jobs. Businesses
:45:11. > :45:14.aren't investing. They're sitting on a massive amount of cash because
:45:14. > :45:22.they don't feel certain about whether to invest. That's a
:45:22. > :45:27.sweeping generalisation. There are businesses doing that. The other
:45:27. > :45:32.side, if you look at the schemes such as funding for for lending,
:45:32. > :45:37.that's starting to works. When we get a new Governor of the Bank of
:45:37. > :45:47.England the monetary debate will kick off again on what can be done
:45:47. > :45:59.
:45:59. > :46:05.to bring money into the economy in How worried are your quairbts about
:46:05. > :46:09.inflation? -- quairbts about inflation? The cost of living
:46:09. > :46:14.affects everybody. We have to be mindful and I think the Chancellor
:46:14. > :46:19.is mindful of the fact that people are hurting. The pound is getting
:46:19. > :46:25.squeezed through energy costs and fuel prices. What does he do to
:46:25. > :46:28.help them? He recognises that. At the same time we have to press the
:46:28. > :46:32.energy companies to keep prices low and to be fair in terms of
:46:32. > :46:35.competition as well. It is about the pressure we can apply. The last
:46:35. > :46:42.thing we want to see is sterling come under acute pressure. Of
:46:42. > :46:46.course that would have a knock-on in terms of food prices. One could
:46:46. > :46:52.argue it is under pressure. should not create panic about this.
:46:52. > :46:56.It has been hit over the past week - that was in anticipation of the
:46:56. > :47:02.credit rating being lost. Let's turn attentions to a story which
:47:02. > :47:07.has all the drama and intrigue of a soap opera. A former MP facing jail
:47:07. > :47:17.and a cast of MPs seeking to be elected in Eastleigh.
:47:17. > :47:22.Flem flem flem has been to Hampshire -- Adam Fleming has been
:47:22. > :47:27.to Hampshire. Affairs, rivalries and boats - 80s'
:47:27. > :47:34.TV favourite Howard's Way had it all! It was filmed here in
:47:34. > :47:39.Eastleigh, which is now in the midst of a by-election of soap
:47:39. > :47:43.opera proportions. This was a Tory seat until 1994, then the Lib Dems
:47:43. > :47:48.seized it. Chris Huhne was the MP in 2005. We all know what happened
:47:48. > :47:58.to that character. If Chris Huhne is the villain, then here is the
:47:58. > :47:58.
:47:58. > :48:02.man trying to clean up the mess - the Liberal Democrat candidate.
:48:02. > :48:08.He put his hand up for it. He should be punished. I would like
:48:08. > :48:18.him to apologise to everyone here. Meet his closest rival and feisty
:48:18. > :48:22.female - Maria Hutchings who has gone off on her own issues. This is
:48:22. > :48:26.a fantastic place to live. It deserves somebody who understands
:48:26. > :48:36.it and will be a good focal force in Parliament, supporting David
:48:36. > :48:40.Cameron's clear message. Who is this? A mysterious new-comer - John
:48:40. > :48:45.O 'Farrell. There'll be a general election in two-and-a-half years -
:48:45. > :48:50.are you committed as-to-a life as MP? If they don't like me after two
:48:50. > :48:55.years they can kick me out again. I will stand if elected. I am looking
:48:55. > :49:05.forward to that exciting life. there is the previously minor
:49:05. > :49:06.
:49:06. > :49:09.character thrust into a major plot line, the UKIP candidate. I have
:49:09. > :49:13.had questions thrown at me, you know, you have to think on your
:49:14. > :49:20.feet. Like what? A number of the interviewers were, are you racist?
:49:20. > :49:23.Are you a bigot? You know - it's amazing that they still trawl that
:49:23. > :49:29.particular line. And the theme continues at this local pub, where
:49:30. > :49:36.they have a tribute to the cast of Howard's Way on the wall. Hang on -
:49:36. > :49:42.that's given me an idea! Which soap opera character are you like in
:49:43. > :49:49.real life? I heard Joan Tweeted I should be the lead in Borgen. I
:49:49. > :49:55.don't watch it. I will be one of the Spooks girls. Which one?
:49:55. > :49:59.Probably one of them they have killed off. One soap opera I
:49:59. > :50:03.enjoyed watching is an American one - it was the West Wing. If I can be
:50:03. > :50:13.even a quarter of the man the President was in that, I would be a
:50:13. > :50:13.
:50:13. > :50:23.very happy man! Bet Lnych, serving pints to the
:50:23. > :50:26.
:50:26. > :50:32.To be fair to this place, Howard's Way is not that realistic -
:50:33. > :50:37.Eastleigh is actually an old railway town, but this episode is a
:50:37. > :50:45.real-life cliffhanger. What will the consequences be? Will Labour
:50:45. > :50:55.sink and UKIP swim? Stay tuned! Remember, you can see a full list
:50:55. > :51:01.of candidates on the BBC website. We are joined now by Gerard Batten.
:51:01. > :51:05.How damaging to Lib Dem prospects is the way the party have handled
:51:05. > :51:09.allegations that have been denied by Lord Rennard? I found as I was
:51:09. > :51:12.in the constituency last night at a hustings there was not one question
:51:12. > :51:16.about it. I had spoken at a constituency dinner on Saturday
:51:16. > :51:20.night. I spent over an hour on questions and not anybody there
:51:20. > :51:26.asked me a question about it. It is certainly a big issue in the
:51:26. > :51:31.Westminster puddle. As far as I am concerned, and I can say quite
:51:31. > :51:36.categorically, I had never heard of these allegations either first-hand,
:51:36. > :51:41.second-hand at all. I have been a female MP for 12 years. So, I think
:51:41. > :51:45.that is very significant. I'm not pleased, as a female, to think
:51:45. > :51:50.these were not investigated and dealt with properly at the time. I
:51:50. > :51:54.am straight to the investigations. I think all this speculation, who
:51:54. > :51:58.said what, where and when is ludicrous. Let's get on with a
:51:58. > :52:08.proper inquiry. For me, we are looking at culture. Cultural
:52:08. > :52:12.problem across the Church, the BBC - we could go on and on. What about
:52:12. > :52:17.the culture in the Lib Dems? As a woman MP, you say you have been
:52:17. > :52:22.there many years - what is it like? Do you say you are not pleased hu
:52:22. > :52:26.they dealt with it at the time? culture aspect - was there an
:52:26. > :52:30.element of an important person going through. Did we have the
:52:30. > :52:34.right structures in place? If we find we did and they were all there,
:52:34. > :52:39.why didn't they apparently work properly and therefore we've got to
:52:39. > :52:43.look at whether people are in the right places. I am confident with
:52:43. > :52:48.the Chief Whip. A very professional chief executive. Total confidence
:52:48. > :52:52.in where we are going from here. As a female, I certainly feel that I
:52:52. > :52:58.want to know why, how and to be able to stand up and say, this will
:52:58. > :53:02.never happen again in our party. Priti Patel, do you accept that the
:53:02. > :53:06.Eastleigh by-election result will be a verdict on David Cameron's
:53:06. > :53:09.leadership and the coalition? don't. By-elections, particularly
:53:09. > :53:13.mid-term, yes people will vote whichever way they want to vote,
:53:13. > :53:18.but I don't think any sitting Government should take it as a said
:53:18. > :53:22.verdict on them because people vote because they are disillusioned,
:53:22. > :53:30.unhappy about things going on. I have been involved in by-elections
:53:30. > :53:34.for a long period of time. So, it's flux - yes, there is a lot of that
:53:34. > :53:39.in by-election. By-elections do play some importance, but more
:53:39. > :53:46.often than not you will find a local candidate... What about UKIP
:53:46. > :53:49.in terms of taking away Tory voters and handing the by-election to the
:53:49. > :53:52.Liberal Democrats? I am not convinced. There is a national
:53:52. > :53:57.spotlight on by-elections. All the parties will throw everything into
:53:57. > :54:03.them. They will try and maximise their share of the vote. When it
:54:03. > :54:07.comes to UKIP claiming they are the only party on Europe, I disagree
:54:07. > :54:11.with that. Isn't that what you are hearing on
:54:11. > :54:16.the doorstep - actually, don't worry Mr Batten because the Tories
:54:16. > :54:20.are giving us what we want, so we will not vote UKIP? I have not
:54:20. > :54:25.heard that at all. I have heard disillusioned people. People are
:54:25. > :54:30.coming over to UKIP. We're not just taking votes from the Tories -
:54:30. > :54:35.that's a myth. We take them from Labour supporters. We take some Lib
:54:35. > :54:40.Dem votes sometimes. But not often? I don't have a scientific analysis
:54:40. > :54:44.for you, but we do take, because a lot of Lib Dem votes are protest
:54:44. > :54:50.votes, in Eastleigh any way. People who have protested by voting for
:54:50. > :54:55.the Lib Dems no longer feel it is a worthwhile thing to do. The latest
:54:55. > :54:59.figures is we can be neck and neck with the Tories. The polls out at
:54:59. > :55:03.the weekend said we are on 21%. They looked at how people's
:55:03. > :55:08.previous voting - how they voted last time. If you take it out of
:55:08. > :55:16.the equation, we could be on 25, the Tories on 26. Labour risks
:55:16. > :55:23.coming behind UKIP in this race? are not complacent about this at
:55:23. > :55:26.all. An old railway town, this should be a three-way margin, a
:55:26. > :55:30.four-way margin. People are feeling the squeeze as much as elsewhere.
:55:30. > :55:33.We are fighting this by-election hard. We are fighting it hard
:55:33. > :55:38.because it signalled something about Ed Miliband's Labour Party,
:55:38. > :55:42.which is we are not just interested in Governing for one section of the
:55:42. > :55:47.population. When he said, we want to be the one nation party, he
:55:47. > :55:52.meant it. That is why we're on the doorstep, trying to garner support
:55:52. > :55:56.n a seat we have traditionally not won. Is the candidate taking it
:55:56. > :56:00.seriously? I think he is taking it seriously. He is a stance believer
:56:00. > :56:05.in social justice, as am I. He cares about the situation of people
:56:05. > :56:09.who are seeing their living standards falling as a result of
:56:09. > :56:15.the disastrous handling of the economy. You see light-hearted
:56:15. > :56:22.humour from him. In the general circus that Eastleigh seems to have
:56:22. > :56:27.become I preferred the brand of humour than what is going on at the
:56:27. > :56:31.moment. Has it turned into a dirty fight? I didn't see that last night.
:56:31. > :56:34.I have been out on the street as well. I would argue that, at this
:56:34. > :56:40.stage, the Liberal Democrats are not looking for a protest vote.
:56:40. > :56:44.What they are looking at is a track record in the town with holding all
:56:44. > :56:52.26 council seats. They could not have been doing bad things over so
:56:52. > :56:57.many years - it is remarkable to hold all the seats. A local can r
:56:57. > :57:00.candidate. As they have some local credentials. He has the track
:57:00. > :57:06.record. Well, good for him! Stay with us. We are nearly at the end
:57:06. > :57:16.of the programme. We are joined from Westminster but someone you
:57:16. > :57:16.
:57:16. > :57:24.will all recognise. Hugh Fearnley- Whittingstall. What is the fishiest
:57:24. > :57:28.outfith you've had? We've had squid, jellyfish. It's been the most
:57:28. > :57:32.fantastic carnival atmosphere. We have close to 2,000 people here.
:57:32. > :57:36.They are here because they share the passion for protecting the
:57:36. > :57:45.marine environment. We have a very, very loud siren going on behind me.
:57:45. > :57:50.We are used to it. Battle with it. I don't want to dampen anyone's
:57:50. > :57:53.enthusiasm here. There is a consultation about marine
:57:53. > :57:58.conservation. Our Government has asked to hear from us. We want to
:57:58. > :58:03.see action. You want to see action. Have Government ministers agreed to
:58:03. > :58:07.meet you? Are you getting anywhere? I have met with our fisheries
:58:07. > :58:12.minister on several occasions to discuss this issue. It is - fair
:58:12. > :58:16.play to him - he is engaged. Having set up a period of consultation
:58:16. > :58:21.over two years which cost �8 million, DEFRA came up with a
:58:22. > :58:25.proposal for a network of 127 Marine Conservation Zones around
:58:25. > :58:29.the UK. That is a good, healthy number. The current disappointment
:58:29. > :58:33.is they have announced they will only look at 31 of them. That is
:58:33. > :58:40.what we're talking about here today. We want to see a time frame to
:58:40. > :58:46.extend that number for a proper consultation on the full 127.
:58:46. > :58:53.will let you go back to your fishy friends. Good luck! That is all for